<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">It's more time-consuming to retrieve,
but LOC also has RDA records. Their new interface seems to
support a batch download, and they use the 040$e RDA designation,
so if you go here <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://catalog2.loc.gov/vwebv/searchKeyword">http://catalog2.loc.gov/vwebv/searchKeyword</a> <br>
<br>
and enter <br>
<br>
040E RDA<br>
<br>
as your term, it should return a set of RDA records. Looks like
you can export them one page (up to 100 records) at a time into a
UTF-8 or MARC-8 file.<br>
<br>
Some appear to be without subject headings, but they have the RDA
264, 336, 337, and 338 tags.<br>
<br>
IIRC as LOC is a federal government entity, these records are free
to use & in the public domain -- anyway not a perfect
solution, but it keeps us from having to deal with OCLC and its
complications.<br>
<br>
A.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Andrea Buntz Neiman, MLS
Librarian II, Public Services
Kent County Public Library
408 High Street
Chestertown, MD 21620
410-778-3636 x2115
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.kentcountylibrary.org">www.kentcountylibrary.org</a></pre>
On 5/14/2014 11:07 AM, Rogan Hamby wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMwaE4+cFwLUQvKmu1Jogo9pQZ-nrCFfcTV5ggsFtkCzqVpWJg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Rather than retype everything I'm going to copy and
paste from IRC for this:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<p class="">eeevil</p>
<p class="">dbs / <span class="">RoganH</span>: heh ... I
just brought up that point on the EOB list... ;)</p>
<p class="">10:54</p>
<p class="">RoganH</p>
<p class="">eeevil: that's actually debatable</p>
<p class="">10:54</p>
<p class="">RoganH</p>
<p class="">eeevil: and unfortunately recent court rulings
would be against us there</p>
<p class="">10:54</p>
<p class="">eeevil</p>
<p class=""><span class="">RoganH</span>: the fact-ness of
MARC, you mean?</p>
<p class="">10:54</p>
<p class="">RoganH</p>
<p class="">eeevil: yep.</p>
<p class="">10:55<br>
</p>
<p class="">RoganH</p>
<p class="">eeevil: the descriptive versus expressive work
debate is an old one. For example, rankings used to be
considered descriptive and facts but recent court rulings
have said if a unique process discovered them then they're
not.</p>
<p class="">10:55<br>
</p>
<p class="">eeevil</p>
<p class=""><span class="">RoganH</span>: I'm behind the
times, then! IIRC, it was just 2005-ish when the consensus
was "they're facts" ... but, 9 years is a long time</p>
<p class="">10:55</p>
<p class="">RoganH</p>
<p class="">eeevil: so if you have a unique process to
creating a MARC .... now, another court may rule the
opposite way</p>
<p class="">10:56</p>
<p class="">RoganH</p>
<p class="">eeevil: this stuff is up in the air, there's not
absolute black and white on it</p>
<p class="">10:56<br>
</p>
<p class="">eeevil</p>
<p class="">hrm... I thought Fiest did away with the process
argument... but /again/ IANAL ;)</p>
<p class="">10:57<br>
</p>
<p class="">RoganH</p>
<p class="">eeevil: no, Fiest vs Rural established that a low
enough amount of original work is not enough but each judge
gets to rule what is above that threshold</p>
<p class="">10:58<br>
</p>
<p class="">RoganH</p>
<p class="">eeevil: now, me, I would rule that a MARC record
is below that threshold and I can probably find 3 judges who
would agree with me at least one that wouldn't</p>
<p class="">10:58</p>
<p class="">RoganH</p>
<p class="">eeevil: the question becomes which judge hears
your case?</p>
<p class=""><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Mike
Rylander <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mrylander@gmail.com" target="_blank">mrylander@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">IANAL, nor
on the EOB, but I've been following this discussion closely<br>
and I just want to inject a small point.<br>
<br>
The OCLC policy documentation, when discussing what is
allowed or<br>
permitted, refers most often to "our catalog" or "the
catalog". That<br>
implies (in the legal sense) that it is speaking of the
collection (or<br>
a substantial portion thereof) as a whole, as opposed to a
single<br>
record. Again, IANAL, but my understanding is that
individual MARC<br>
records are considered facts, and thus not copyrightable in
the US<br>
(and, indeed, many of OCLC's records derive substantially
from record<br>
created by LoC, which are public domain by definition in the
US). It<br>
seems, then, that OCLC's policy concern is with the
wholesale<br>
harvesting of library catalogs, and not the distribution of
individual<br>
records. This may be because they can't legally assert any
control<br>
over individual records, or may be because the don't have
any desire<br>
to do so; or I may simply be reading what I want into their
policy<br>
statements ...<br>
<br>
For a little layperson background on compilation (database,
catalog)<br>
vs underlying data (MARC records as facts), you can see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html"
target="_blank">http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html</a><br>
<br>
With that, I'll go back to lurking!<br>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Rogan Hamby <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rogan.hamby@gmail.com">rogan.hamby@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> I can easily imagine confusion playing a
significant part in this. But, if<br>
> the policy Yamil pointed us to does in fact
supersede the old one in full<br>
> then it's the one we have to make a decision based
on in terms of it being<br>
> OCLC's position. Context is valuable but in legal
matters only when there's<br>
> ambiguity in terms of an agreement to show intent
or if there is an attempt<br>
> to show a party acting in bad faith.<br>
><br>
> Their FAQ further tightens down on their intent
pretty clearly.<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/policy/questions.en.html"
target="_blank">http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/policy/questions.en.html</a><br>
><br>
> #10 on their FAQ further clarifies what is implied
elsewhere that "[OCLC]<br>
> does not claim copyright ownership of individual
records." The conservative<br>
> legal thing to do would be to gain access from a
library who owns said<br>
> records to use them.<br>
><br>
> However I do a possible avenue in question 7 "A
nonmember or agent<br>
> (commercial or noncommercial) is seeking permission
to harvest or receive a<br>
> copy of our catalog that includes our extracted
WorldCat data so it can<br>
> incorporate the data into its product or service."
This would include the<br>
> subset in question though it would only include
instances where the library<br>
> had holdings associated with those records.
Neither descriptions 1 or 2<br>
> would apply to the Evergreen project as a legal
entity. However,<br>
> description 3 of type of nonmember or agency lists
criteria for allowing<br>
> entities excluded by 1 or 2 and among the terms
lists terms "comparable"<br>
> (which lets a lower legal standard) and allows it
when it further's OCLC's<br>
> public purpose, there are limitations that
essentially prevent it from<br>
> harming WorldCat and additional exchange of value.
Note, that this does not<br>
> have to be approved by OCLC and only has to be
comparable (which is why I'm<br>
> not quoting whole sections). While there is not an
exchange of services<br>
> there is a comparable exchange of value based on
improved ILS QA. The<br>
> limitation would be the limited amount of records
used. Clearly, we don't<br>
> need enough to come anywhere near to duplicating
WorldCat for test data.<br>
> And OCLC's public purpose states that "we will work
together to improve<br>
> access to the information held in libraries around
the globe" which I think<br>
> Evergreen and Koha both do as open source projects.<br>
><br>
> Now, would I feel comfortable going forward with
this argument? I would be<br>
> but I also tend to lean strongly towards the side
of "information wants to<br>
> be free."<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Dan Wells <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dbw2@calvin.edu">dbw2@calvin.edu</a>>
wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> The new policy does supersede the old, but I
still feel the old provides<br>
>> important context. The original version of the
new policy was much more<br>
>> severe, and raised quite a stir, and the
language we have now was meant to<br>
>> be a compromise to the many (myself included)
who felt we were losing<br>
>> significant freedoms the old policy allowed.
Of course, in the process, the<br>
>> language became quite complicated, and I doubt
even OCLC itself truly knows<br>
>> what is allowed and what is not (and hence
their apparent unwillingness to<br>
>> give a straight answer).<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Dan<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Daniel Wells<br>
>><br>
>> Library Programmer/Analyst<br>
>><br>
>> Hekman Library, Calvin College<br>
>><br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:616.526.7133" value="+16165267133">616.526.7133</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> eg-oversight-board mailing list<br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:eg-oversight-board@list.evergreen-ils.org">eg-oversight-board@list.evergreen-ils.org</a><br>
>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board"
target="_blank">http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> eg-oversight-board mailing list<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:eg-oversight-board@list.evergreen-ils.org">eg-oversight-board@list.evergreen-ils.org</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board"
target="_blank">http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br>
Mike Rylander<br>
| Director of Research and Development<br>
| Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open
Source<br>
| phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)<br>
| email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:miker@esilibrary.com">miker@esilibrary.com</a><br>
| web: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.esilibrary.com" target="_blank">http://www.esilibrary.com</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
eg-oversight-board mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:eg-oversight-board@list.evergreen-ils.org">eg-oversight-board@list.evergreen-ils.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board">http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>